Has anyone become famous, and not bought a mansion?

musicismylife78 wrote:

I think the general assumption is once you hit the big time everything will be fine. That all the problems you had will be solved. Its a wrong assumption. The girls on The Hills, or Britney or Lindsay or Paris I bet if you asked them, they would say they arent happy. That money doesnt do anything for them.
Yet all live extravagent livestyles. Money hasnt made them better people in fact it seems the case all three have become less since becoming famous
thats all the point i wanted to make

seriously, seems like YOU are making many assumptions about others, and i have no idea on what basis. i know NO ONE who thinks this, at all. i think perhaps you've been living in a bubble, and don't know too many real-life people to truly have a sense of what they think and feel? i don't honestly know what else to think. money can take care of some 'worries' sure...but no one i know thinks it's the end-all be-all..not by a longshot, and it sure as shit doesn't make life happy, YOU make your life happy. anyone i know knows this. seems you work on a lot of assumptions, but not many facts...and on ideas of society that have come and gone...like the whole white flight to the suburbs, etc. there's a whole world out there...embrace it. btw - for someone so anti-establishement, anti-commercialism...you sure to seem well-versed on everything on tv. earlier you said you wouldn't believe someone not ever seeing MTVcribs. *raises hand* never saw it, no interest. same with much on the tube, and i certainly don't sit thru endless advertisements, etc.....so i am not subjected so heavily to all the 'pressures' to want, want, want...tho i watched plenty of tv as a kid, tho probably not as much as kids today...but funny, it in no way shaped my values....my family and friends did that...and most importantly, me. you seem under the delusion that you are the only 'free-thinker' out there. we are many. just b/c we don't follow your free-thinking, doesn't mean we don't do our own free-thought and choice.

12345AGNST1 wrote:

only drives a BMW 5 series, and doesnt waste his money. .

oxywha?

edit: guess you never told us the year

12345AGNST1 wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

12345AGNST1 wrote:

only drives a BMW 5 series, and doesnt waste his money. .

oxywha?

edit: guess you never told us the year

its like a 2005. The guy can afford a new Bentley or Rolls Royce, He chose the middle line BMW. Not even a 7series. its like $45-50k vs $200-300k.

sure, but wasting money and what you can afford are not directly related. Just because he can afford a more costly ride, doesn't mean a $50k car isn't a waste of money. Esp if he bought it new.
Still, I don't begrudge people for nice cars...it's something I'd probably spend money on if I had lots...and buying a bimmer is LESS of a waste of money than buying domestic, so there's something to be said for that

decides2dream wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

sure, but wasting money and what you can afford are not directly related. Just because he can afford a more costly ride, doesn't mean a $50k car isn't a waste of money. Esp if he bought it new.
Still, I don't begrudge people for nice cars...it's something I'd probably spend money on if I had lots...and buying a bimmer is LESS of a waste of money than buying domestic, so there's something to be said for that

why is it a *waste* tho? truly?
he obviously is living well WITHIN his means, can afford way more. sure, one does not *need* a more expensive car per se......but why is the only other choice that it is a waste? more expensive goods usually require more expensive components, more expensive and skilled labor to produce, etc, etc......see where i am going? those more expensive cars, homes, electronics, clothes, etc.....provide many, many jobs....and many of em higher paying b/c many of the goods require higher skillsets. and even amongst the jobs that don't require higher skillsets, they are still providing jobs by providing the needs for production. hardly seems a *waste* when you see just how many people earn their livilihoods b/c of it. just sayin'......it's not all waste.......and in the discussion of a car, it may not be an actual waste either b/c many expensive cars are more fuel efficient, and/or safer construction, etc, etc. not always the case, but again...just sayin'...bigger picture........

Regardless of your 'means', spending $50k on a car is wasteful. You could buy a car that's just as reliable for much less. In terms of practicality, it's not worth the extra money...so it's wasteful IMO. I know what you're saying about the trickle-down effect, but there is waste there too...the higher wages etc are a result of the higher end cost...so if the manufacturer was building a more cost-effective car with less frills, he probably wouldn't be stuck with the high-cost labour..ya know? It's always interesting to find the balance between an acceptable, wester-world life standard, and the poverty we're turnign our backs on. Sure, people deserve nice things for hard work, and it's not fair to hold success against someone....but where should the line be drawn? I guess I'm vearing into idealism and mass-morality, which doesn't seem very popular in this discussion
And yes, resale, fuel efficiency, safety etc all factor into the decision of what make and how much to spend....but a 5 series BMW, while not the epitomy of greed, is still an ego-based purchase. which is ok with me...just sayin

musicismylife78 wrote:

And the fact that I cant think of any famous person, who has the wealth and the success, but also has a small house, in the middle of the city, is indeed disappointing.

So you know where every famous person lives and in what kinda house? I'm betting there's plenty of them who stayed in the same house... but they'd be the kinda celebs who don't live public and flashy lives so you wouldn't know where they live.

In Ireland many celebs live in normal houses... but it's a different celeb world to some countries.

musicismylife78 wrote:

Gee I wonder why I would think that decide2dream? I started this thread and most of it is made up of people disagreeing with me. Which is fine, but people seem incredulous that I would even ask why people who get wealthy buy things.

So yeah, i dont mind suggesting it seems I am the only person, or seems like I am the only person who isnt wrapped up in material things.

so because rich people invest in security, we're ALL materialistic????? And don't forget, property is an investment... they don't know how long their careers will last so people like to keep their money tied up in something to invest in the future... maybe they've nothing to fall back on?

Oh and the richest man in Ireland lives in my town. He only invested in the gated mansion once he hit about 6billion. And I doubt it was his idea... he's not big on spending. Lives quite a modest life... apart from the mansion now.. and his mansion is built on the site of his old house.

JordyWordy wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

And I doubt it was his idea... he's not big on spending. Lives quite a modest life...

Not big on spending.....he's from Cavan right? lol.

Good point about celebs here with normal houses. I wonder if part of the reason for that is cos of how ridiculously expensive property is here anyway!

Good point about the LT investment in property too.

Lol, actually he's from over the border in Fermanagh but he's lived in Cavan long enough to pick up our ways

Property is ridiculous in Ireland... a million euro house in Dublin isn't very impressive.

Well with the long term investment thing, I'm thinking MORE about sport celebs, their career is very very short... but actors, musicians, etc. don't know either how long they're gonna be around.

Drowned Out wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

sure, but wasting money and what you can afford are not directly related. Just because he can afford a more costly ride, doesn't mean a $50k car isn't a waste of money. Esp if he bought it new.
Still, I don't begrudge people for nice cars...it's something I'd probably spend money on if I had lots...and buying a bimmer is LESS of a waste of money than buying domestic, so there's something to be said for that

why is it a *waste* tho? truly?
he obviously is living well WITHIN his means, can afford way more. sure, one does not *need* a more expensive car per se......but why is the only other choice that it is a waste? more expensive goods usually require more expensive components, more expensive and skilled labor to produce, etc, etc......see where i am going? those more expensive cars, homes, electronics, clothes, etc.....provide many, many jobs....and many of em higher paying b/c many of the goods require higher skillsets. and even amongst the jobs that don't require higher skillsets, they are still providing jobs by providing the needs for production. hardly seems a *waste* when you see just how many people earn their livilihoods b/c of it. just sayin'......it's not all waste.......and in the discussion of a car, it may not be an actual waste either b/c many expensive cars are more fuel efficient, and/or safer construction, etc, etc. not always the case, but again...just sayin'...bigger picture........

Regardless of your 'means', spending $50k on a car is wasteful. You could buy a car that's just as reliable for much less. In terms of practicality, it's not worth the extra money...so it's wasteful IMO. I know what you're saying about the trickle-down effect, but there is waste there too...the higher wages etc are a result of the higher end cost...so if the manufacturer was building a more cost-effective car with less frills, he probably wouldn't be stuck with the high-cost labour..ya know? It's always interesting to find the balance between an acceptable, wester-world life standard, and the poverty we're turnign our backs on. Sure, people deserve nice things for hard work, and it's not fair to hold success against someone....but where should the line be drawn? I guess I'm vearing into idealism and mass-morality, which doesn't seem very popular in this discussion
And yes, resale, fuel efficiency, safety etc all factor into the decision of what make and how much to spend....but a 5 series BMW, while not the epitomy of greed, is still an ego-based purchase. which is ok with me...just sayin

very, very key phrasing there. while it may be wasteful in your opinion, that does not make it wasteful as point of fact. idk what 'line' you're referring to here....b/c as far as i know, we're not at the point of making the haves pay for the have nots, and nor do i think we should....that is not the 'ideal' imo.....so whatever excess $$$ someone has at their disposal is still overal theirs to do as they wish, after taxes of course. that said, i do not see luxury goods, in and of themselves, as wasteful. whether one pays a lot of $$$ for a car, a watch, a bag, whatever......you ARE paying for craftsmanship, materials, etc. for me, i would never spend that kind of $$$ on a car......but what we've spent on a sound system, or even windowboxes for our home....one might deem 'wasteful'......but it's merely choice. and to say any of these purchases are 'ego-based' really....without knowing the person, you cannot know that. i may agree if someone has 5 cars just to have, etc....that it's wasteful...but to spend a good amount of $$$ on a really well-designed/made machine, a useful machine on top of it, to be used, etc.......just a difference of opinion there.

Drowned Out wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

stuff

:P
splitting hairs now, but I think there is a big difference between 'well designed' and 'luxury'... I was talking 'practicality'....a 5-series isn't practical at all, it's a luxury car....Do you agree that the more luxurious, the more wasteful? A 5 series will give you a reach-around if you ask nicely enough...which is great, but not essential in a car....therefore...reach-around feature = wasteful spending!

no, i don't agree more luxurious = more wasteful....that's my point. also, many well-designed things just also happen to be luxurious and vice versa...sometimes difficult to divide the two, and again...not necessarily wasteful. ever here the saying "i'm too poor to buy cheap things".....? i realize 'luxury' is beyond merely that, but truly.....if something is so well-designed, luxurious....apt to use it more, longer, resell it....then it end in the trash heap, etc. is it practical to buy something that will last, or something you have to replace more often? obviously, this is beyond cars......but it all fits in the discussion imo.

anyhoo, we simply disagree. as i said, for me, i could never fathom spending 50k on a car, even if i had the $$$....but more likely b/c i never imagine myself having THAt kinda $$$ to not give a 2nd thought to buying such a vehicle. however, i DO try and buy the best i can afford, most of the time....and many, many times in the past i've realized i went the 'cheap' route....and it ended up costing me more down the road. so there Is something to be said even for luxury, and not all wasteful....and certainly not all ego-driven, that's all......




btw - what's impractical about a bmw 5 series, outside of the cost for the average car buyer? it's my understanding that they are pretty 'practical' cars, right along with being quite luxurious too.